American Politics

[Doppleganger]

Trump wins again. Remarkable.

[deoxys]

Not really remarkable when your competition is Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Kasich will unfortunately probably drop out after tonight.

The fact that he had almost twice the percentage as Rubio, who came in second, is pretty astonishing though. Can't believe I'm saying it but he's probably going to be the nominee... Can't believe we've actually come this far.


Meanwhile at the townhall tonight, Hillary says she doesn't know why Bernie is so popular with the youth vote, and then goes on to say, in response to Bernie releasing his transcripts, "I will release mine will all of the other candidates do it... and that includes the Republicans." Bahahaha, what a joke! She had to change her narrative on that issue to "Republicans included" when Bernie actually followed through and released his. What an utter joke.

[Miror]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Not really remarkable when your competition is Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Kasich will unfortunately probably drop out after tonight.

The fact that he had almost twice the percentage as Rubio, who came in second, is pretty astonishing though. Can't believe I'm saying it but he's probably going to be the nominee... Can't believe we've actually come this far.


Meanwhile at the townhall tonight, Hillary says she doesn't know why Bernie is so popular with the youth vote, and then goes on to say, in response to Bernie releasing his transcripts, "I will release mine will all of the other candidates do it... and that includes the Republicans." Bahahaha, what a joke! She had to change her narrative on that issue to "Republicans included" when Bernie actually followed through and released his. What an utter joke.

Kasich didn't spend a cent in Nevada so tonight's results are highly unlikely to affect him. He's staying in until Ohio at the very least, though if he loses to Trump there, I could see him very likely folding then since it's a) his home state and b) he's relying on the winner take all format of Ohio to help him gain some delegate relevance. Might just stick around for proportional delegates throughout though, we'll see. The real loser in Nevada tonight was Cruz, who lost among evangelical voters (being his supposed base of voters) to both Trump and Rubio, and didn't fare too well among other groups either. He's basically looking to Texas as his saving grace at this point as can be seen by his Nevada concession speech. Said speech made him sound beaten, tired, and wanting to move quickly to safer territory, all not the most invigorating of campaign strategies. Though he is decreasing the gap between himself and Rubio in Nevada as we speak (actually he's ahead by fifty votes currently, intriguing), so this night may be easier on Cruz than he was expecting since when he gave his concession he was about 4-5% behind Rubio. Regardless, not a good night for either considering how much they spent in the state, and especially with such high profile endorsements for the state on Rubio's side. EDIT: Yeah, since it seems as if it could go either way at this point, if Rubio ends up in third despite the huge push towards the end here, that may be enough to cripple him as there really aren't any states going forward, especially Super Tuesday, that he's expected to win or come close to winning. So the former point still stands that either of them needed a bigger showing in Nevada, and neither of them got what they needed.

Trump is essentially the inevitable Republican nominee at this point, however frightening or odd it may be. There are incredibly few states that aren't going his way in terms of polling at the moment, and Cruz/Kasich winning their home states will do nothing to curb that. All they can hope for really is to siphon away enough delegates so that he doesn't hit the 1237 benchmark and some interesting things could potentially go down at the convention, but once again we'll need to see how everything ends up playing out.

The town hall was certainly enjoyable, though I didn't really see anything that would really decamp anyone from either side to move towards one or the other this time around. Clinton supporters will mostly be ambivalent about her not releasing speech transcripts, though it's starting to seem odd that she wouldn't unless there was something potentially compromising in them that doesn't fit her "I told them to stop it" narrative. Seems kinda like the whole Romney tax returns thing coming back from the dead. The whole young voter support thing was also not particularly well said, probably leaving Clinton with her current age demographic lol

But yeah, town hall was good, both had some good moments and some more human ones as well, doubtful that any of it affected the race in South Carolina substantially so we'll find out if Bernie can continue to whittle down the margin there by other means. A single digit Clinton win would be enough for Sanders to be happy about. Thankfully all the Democratic primaries and caucuses are locked into being proportional, so it's more likely to end up pretty even (not counting in superdelegates at least).

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by NPR

As has been the case in other contests, Trump did particularly well with older, less-educated voters. Among voters 65 and over, who made up a third of Nevada Republican caucus-goers, Trump more than doubled Rubio's support, winning 51 percent to 25 percent.

The biggest gap was between voters whose education did not go beyond high school — Trump won those voters by a 37-point margin over Cruz.

"I love the poorly-educated," Trump declared in his victory speech.

That last line ... I swear to God, it's like he is actively trying to lose and it keeps backfiring on him and he wins all the more. This is the fucking Producers.

[SoS]

Relevant:

Spoiler: show

Not to distract from the election talk, but what's going on with the Supreme Court thing? I believe I've heard that; regardless of who is nominated; Republicans intend to block Obama's candidate? This seems incredibly unconstitutional.

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

Spoiler: show

That image is absolutely amazing.

And yes, the Republicans are trying to stall the nomination process out for about three times longer than it's ever been in history. It's not going to work, but they'll score points with their constituents by knocking Obama's first nominee back- much like the Democrats did with W. appointing Harriet Miers- fairly, as she was a disastrous choice. She was so bad that several political strategists think that W. nominated her knowing she'd never pass the senate, just so his second and less insane pick of Alito would pass without as much grumbling. It's kind of amazing the subtle machinations you can engage in when most of the world thinks you're the stupidest person to ever hold public office.

[Jerichi]

>implying Cheney didn't have a stealth two term presidency

[Concept]

*Shrug* Bush was smart enough to get himself elected twice. There's a lot of mileage to be had in playing dumber than you are. S'how Boris Johnson works too.

[Snorby]

Well no he got himself elected once and the Supreme Court got him elected once :p

[deoxys]

Bush got elected a second time because Kerry was a boring and terrible choice for a Democratic candidate to compete against him

[Mercutio]

Bush Jr is pretty smart. And was very effective at the job of being President (regardless of your opinion on what it is he wanted to do). Way better than, say, Carter, who is literally the textbook example of being bad at the job.

[deoxys]

Let's not forget some of Carter's achievements, given he's almost single-handedly is the reason the guinea worm is almost eradicated, although admittedly did this after he left this White House, so...

[deh74]

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

Relevant:

Spoiler: show

Not to distract from the election talk, but what's going on with the Supreme Court thing? I believe I've heard that; regardless of who is nominated; Republicans intend to block Obama's candidate? This seems incredibly unconstitutional.

Obama has the constitutional right to send a nominee to the Senate for their approval. The Senate, however, is completely allowed to outright reject any nominee they want.

[deh74]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Bush got elected a second time because Kerry was a boring and terrible choice for a Democratic candidate to compete against him

Even as somebody from Massachusetts I can concede the fact that John Kerry was an infinitely boring candidate who had trouble relating to everyday Americans. Plus 2004 was a poisoned chalice in that whoever was elected was going to receive a lot of blame for the 2007 recession and their party would be forced out of government come 2008. So really it's better that we didn't elect Kerry because we got Obama, a Democratic management of the recovery, and healthcare reform out of it.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Let's not forget some of Carter's achievements, given he's almost single-handedly is the reason the guinea worm is almost eradicated, although admittedly did this after he left this White House, so...

Jimmy Carter is also the textbook example of how to have a successful and influential post-Presidency. He's a much better former President than he was a President.

I'll agree with Kush that while being somebody I do not agree with on many issues, George W Bush was an effective President.

[RealMrGame10]

We all saw it coming, but RIP Jeb Bush's campaign

Excuse me, I mean Jeb! Bush's campaign

[deh74]

Yep, now the next Bush we have to worry about is Texas Land Commissioner George Prescott Bush, son of Jeb.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_Skidmore.jpg

[Doppleganger]

Bush was effective because Republicans were a more cohesive group than Democrats are. Getting legislation through Congress isn't something Bush could do alone.

Democrats are really the "not Republican" party. If you don't stand for what Republicans believe, you are almost a Democrat by default. And that's the major problem with why Democrats can't get anything done even with a friendly Congress, Presidency and Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Bush got elected a second time because Kerry was a boring and terrible choice for a Democratic candidate to compete against him

Yet, in spite of that, it was a fairly close election. 4% difference is significant, and 6%+ is a blow out.

Considering Bush's worst had yet to come, and he was the sitting president, Kerry came pretty dang close to beating him. The Democrats didn't really need an outstanding candidate given how much Bush had alienated liberals and left-leaning independents. Sure, having someone with a demographic gimmick would have helped, but most of the country was already geared to vote along the party lines.

[Mercutio]

Oh yeah Carter is a great former-President. But I mean that he is literally the one that in degree-level textbooks about the presidency is held up as being bad at it.

[Doppleganger]

Jimmy Carter accomplished a lot, but he also faced some pretty daunting international crises that were somewhat out of his control. It's why a lot of historians give him a break when it comes to stopping stagflation - economists of the time had no answers, either. He was basically average.

Here's a real quick shorthand on how to evaluate American presidents: did the president administer in exceptionally good or exceptionally bad times, and did he accomplish a lot?

Most of the presidents who are pooped on by history accomplished little even though times were heading in a bad direction: Filmore, Pierce, Buchanan did nothing to prevent the Civil War, and Harding, Coolidge did nothing to prevent the Stock Market crash which triggered the Great Depression. Hoover and Carter inherited the mess of their predecessors and weren't able to fix them (and got a lot of undue blame).

The three best presidents - Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington - operated in extraordinarily bad times and rose to the challenge.

Finally, you have Richard Nixon, who based on accomplishments could have been seen as a Top 10 president...except Watergate did tremendous damage to presidential power, and one of George W. Bush's big objectives was to try and undo a lot of the damage inflicted by Nixon.

[deoxys]

Viral in 3... 2...

[Talon87]

She handled that pretty poorly. She could have answered that while she honestly does not recall ever having said such words, if she did say them then she apologizes because that sort of language is not acceptable. Or she could have owned the words and turned this into a narrative about personal growth, pointing out the protester's own young age and then saying, "People change as they grow up. That's the thing about life. You grow as you get older. Not everybody does always. Sometimes people stay set in their ways. They stagnate. The United States can't have somebody for President who exemplifies stagnation. Me? I've said some things in the past that I regret, that I'm even ashamed of. I don't recall saying this thing, but you know, if I did say it then I deeply regret it standing before you today. If I could sit down with the me from 1994, I would tell her many of the same things you are telling me today. I want you to understand, you and I are on the same page, here, now, today in 2016. I want to make a better future for America, one in which people -- even the past me from 1994 -- cannot speak of human beings like that."

Something like that. Anything like that. Even if the protester is there to protest and is a die-hard Sanders (or other) supporter, even so, it still would have looked good to Hillary's constituents and to fence-sitters if she had engaged this girl in a moment of open dialogue and had agreed that that sort of language has no place in modern American politics.

Instead, she handled this just about as well as you would expect someone who was born with the silver conch in hand.

[deoxys]

Remember what I said about what would happen if Bernie doesn't win the nomination?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nichol...b_9311444.html

[Princess Ana]

I really disagree with the idea that we should just let Trump destroy our country and then rebuild it. Not only is that irresponsible, but its selfish. People who say this I think fail to realize that if America becomes utterly destroyed under Trump, the world will suffer with us. The Great Depression did not only happen in America: it also happened all over the world and directly contributed to World War II. I think a similar scenario would play out, except I think it might be even worse. The US is super involved in the world on multiple scales, probably more so that in the 1920s. I can understand the sentiment of not wanting corruption to weaken the country; no one wants to see America become WWI Russia. But I'm not sure letting someone destroy the country is the right solution to that.

(Let's not ignore the possibility that Trump may not ruin everything. I wonder if he's really as radical as he's portraying or is just lying to get votes. Both are bad enough honestly, but this could also not work any no one would learn _any_ lesson from it what so ever.)

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Emi

I really disagree with the idea that we should just let Trump destroy our country and then rebuild it. Not only is that irresponsible, but its selfish. People who say this I think fail to realize that if America becomes utterly destroyed under Trump, the world will suffer with us. The Great Depression did not only happen in America: it also happened all over the world and directly contributed to World War II. I think a similar scenario would play out, except I think it might be even worse. The US is super involved in the world on multiple scales, probably more so that in the 1920s. I can understand the sentiment of not wanting corruption to weaken the country; no one wants to see America become WWI Russia. But I'm not sure letting someone destroy the country is the right solution to that.

(Let's not ignore the possibility that Trump may not ruin everything. I wonder if he's really as radical as he's portraying or is just lying to get votes. Both are bad enough honestly, but this could also not work any no one would learn _any_ lesson from it what so ever.)

I'm not agreeing with the man personally, I'm just telling you that this is the type of mindset a lot of moderates/independents/youth have. People don't see Hillary any better than being just another Republican, except with some liberal views.

I'm tellin' ya guys, a lot of Bernie supporters are supporting him because they have an "anyone but Clinton" mindset but don't want to go to the republicans

[Princess Ana]

Well Hillary isn't really better than the Republican candidates, and that's my big issue with this election year. All the candidates seem to suck, except for Bernie. Well, I might have swung towards O'Malley if Bernie wasn't around, but he definitely wouldn't have had a chance against Clinton. It's a travesty at best.